← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.
418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court
408
citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

Nyk Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-18(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7393/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rujesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

That the CIT(A) and AO have erred on facts and in law in holding an addition of an amount on account of bogus purchases of Rs.18,65,080 and commission expenses of Rs.74,603. Assessment Year: 2016-17 4. That the addition has been made grossly indulging in surmises ... Rs.14,160 declared by the appellant and submitted that authorities below have grossly erred in making and confirming the addition on account of bogus purchase and commission expenses only on the basis surmises and conjectures without brining on any direct evidence against the assessee only on the basis of presumptions

Vinod Karsanbhai Patel, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7384/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vinod Karsanbhai Patel, The Acit, Central Circle-17, 208/2885, 2Nd Floor, Haryana Singh Road, Delhi Karol Bagh, Delhi 110005 Vs. Pan Aacpp 0956 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Hiren Mehta, Ca Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Ca For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg:- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2022 Of The Ld. Nfac, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Ld. Assessee Representative (Ar) Submitted That The Assessee Does Not Want To Press Ground No. 1 & 2 & Hence The Same Are Dismissed Has Not Pressed. Ground No. 6 Is General In Nature Which Requires No Specific Adjudication. Remaining Effective Grounds For Adjudication Are As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition made by AO on account of alleged bogus purchase from M/s. Mani Prabha Impex Pvt. Ltd. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was also not justified in sustaining the addition on made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases from M/s. Mani Prabha Impex P. Ltd. and also sustaining addition of Rs. 61,362/- on the presumption that the commission at the rate

Titan Laboratories P Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal o

ITA 628/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Circle-14(3)(1), A/01-Gf & A/101 Plot No. 120, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Anand Bhavan Road, Spectrum Vs. Mumbai-400020. Building, R B Mehta Marg, Tilak Road, Ghatkopare (E), Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Aacct 0509 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Mr. B.K. Bagchi, DR
Section 143(3)

Department that assessee had obtained accommodation Sales Tax Department that assessee had obtained accommodation Sales Tax Department that assessee had obtained accommodation entry of bogus purchase entry of bogus purchase, the assessment was reopened and he assessment was reopened and reassessment was completed on 17.12.2016 u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... completed on 17.12.2016 u/s 143(3) reassessment was completed on 17.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein addition in respect of 14 bogus purchase parties wherein addition in respect of 14 bogus purchase parties wherein addition in respect of 14 bogus purchase parties amounting to Rs.4

Babulal Khandelwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(3), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2869/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

against the total returned income of Rs. 7,21,090/- wherein the Ld. A.O. made addition of Rs. 19,80,563/- on account of bogus purchase. As against the assessment order dated 18/03/2016, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated ... found that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.19,80,563/- on account of purchases made by the assessee declaring the same as bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(A) while dealing with the issue held as under:- “iii. Decision I have gone through the facts of the case

Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commisisoner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in

ITA 1184/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1184/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances of purchases of Rs.43,47,750/- by treating the same as ‘Bogus purchases’. 4. The facts concerning this issue are that the Assessing Officer received information from the Sales Tax Department through DGIT (Inv.), Pune containing list ... account, addition can be made only to the extent of difference between the gross profit rate on genuine purchases and gross profit rate on bogus purchases and not the full amount of purchases. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 4 Serum Institute of India Ltd. Pr.CIT Vs. M/s. Mohammad

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Divine Alloys & Power Co. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Block-A-139, Regent Estate, Income - Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. 176/14/139, Rajpur Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700092. (Pan: Aaccd 1367 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

Addition in respect of share capital and share premium Rs. 19,10,16,000/- by treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 b) Bogus purchases Rs. 198,01,40,620/- c) Disallowance u/s. 14A Rs. 20,18,578/- Total Rs. 217,32,55,198/- 5.1. Total income assessed ... Assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein part relief was granted by way of deleting the addition towards bogus purchases and disallowances u/s. 14A for which revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Addition Divine Alloys & Power Co. ltd., AY: 2012-13 was sustained in respect

M/S. Divine Alloys & Power Co. Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1632/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Block-A-139, Regent Estate, Income - Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. 176/14/139, Rajpur Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700092. (Pan: Aaccd 1367 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

Addition in respect of share capital and share premium Rs. 19,10,16,000/- by treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 b) Bogus purchases Rs. 198,01,40,620/- c) Disallowance u/s. 14A Rs. 20,18,578/- Total Rs. 217,32,55,198/- 5.1. Total income assessed ... Assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein part relief was granted by way of deleting the addition towards bogus purchases and disallowances u/s. 14A for which revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Addition Divine Alloys & Power Co. ltd., AY: 2012-13 was sustained in respect

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 963/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

years under consideration by issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of information that the assessee made bogus purchases by availing accommodation entries from Bhanwarlal Jain group. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessments by estimating profit from alleged bogus purchases at 12.5%. In the appellate proceedings ... heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We noticed earlier that the Assessing Officer has estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5%, which was reduced to 6% by Ld. CIT(A). Admittedly, addition has been made on estimated basis in all the three years under consideration. The question

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 962/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

years under consideration by issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of information that the assessee made bogus purchases by availing accommodation entries from Bhanwarlal Jain group. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessments by estimating profit from alleged bogus purchases at 12.5%. In the appellate proceedings ... heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We noticed earlier that the Assessing Officer has estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5%, which was reduced to 6% by Ld. CIT(A). Admittedly, addition has been made on estimated basis in all the three years under consideration. The question

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 961/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

years under consideration by issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of information that the assessee made bogus purchases by availing accommodation entries from Bhanwarlal Jain group. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessments by estimating profit from alleged bogus purchases at 12.5%. In the appellate proceedings ... heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We noticed earlier that the Assessing Officer has estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5%, which was reduced to 6% by Ld. CIT(A). Admittedly, addition has been made on estimated basis in all the three years under consideration. The question

Kanaram Labhuji Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 907/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmankanaram Labhuji Modi Ito – 19(2)(2), 59, Shatwar Mansion, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Room No.1, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Vs. 3Rd Kumbhrwada, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahipm9349P (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Navin Mishra.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the assessee appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has indulged in alleged bogus purchases and relied on the order of the CIT(A). 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie ... contentions are that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases irrespective of the fact that the assessee has submitted the details. The Ld.AR 4 Kanaram Labhuji Modi, Mumbai emphasized that the assessee has maintained books of accounts and referred to facts

Arvind Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 314/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Agrahari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250

assessing officer has erred both on facts and in law in making the addition of total amount Rs. 16,50,000/-of alleged bogus purchases from proprietors firm Namely Jai Shiv Enterprises in spite of M/s Kashyap Trading Co., M/s PS Enterprises & M/s 2 Arvind Kumar Gupta Nisha Traders ... during the assessment proceedings which is abundantly evident from the assessment order framed by him wherein he restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 25,70,000/- to Net Profit rate of 8%. 4. Referring the Ld. AO that assessee has not submitted any proof

Veena Goel Represented Legal Heir of Moti Lal Goel, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1190/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue on the issue of alleged bogus „purchases‟ made from one M/s Meet Enterprises. 2 2.1. That the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the reassessment order on the issue ... alleged bogus „purchases‟ from M/s Meet Enterprises, despite the fact that the issue in reassessment proceedings was restricted only to alleged bogus „payments‟ made to the said party. 2.2. That the PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of disallowance of alleged bogus purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for ground no

ITA 2623/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumargardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. Gh-1, Sector-46, Noida, Central Circle-7, Up-201301 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcg5568K Dcit, Vs. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-7, Plot No. Gh-1, Sector-46, Noida, New Delhi Up-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcg5568K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

cases the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to cancel the reduction in closing work-in- progress on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 26,12,41,822/-.” 4. When the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorized representative (AR) appeared despite repeated ... revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The ld. Senior DR supporting the assessment submitted that the assessee company was involved in bogus purchases from various parties which were not genuine and thereby reducing the taxability of income of assessee. The ld. Senior DR submitted that during the year under

M/S. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for ground no

ITA 2592/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumargardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. Gh-1, Sector-46, Noida, Central Circle-7, Up-201301 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcg5568K Dcit, Vs. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-7, Plot No. Gh-1, Sector-46, Noida, New Delhi Up-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcg5568K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

cases the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to cancel the reduction in closing work-in- progress on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 26,12,41,822/-.” 4. When the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorized representative (AR) appeared despite repeated ... revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The ld. Senior DR supporting the assessment submitted that the assessee company was involved in bogus purchases from various parties which were not genuine and thereby reducing the taxability of income of assessee. The ld. Senior DR submitted that during the year under

Jaggi and Jaggi Machine Tools India, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 113/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejaggi & Jaggi Vs. Ito – 24(2)(2) Machine Tools India Piramal Chambers, R590, Rabale Midc, Parel Ttc Industrial Area, Mumbai – 400012. Rabale -400708. Navi Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj1726F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.N.S.Porwal & Shri.N.N.Porwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.G Mehta.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.N.S.Porwal &For Respondent: Shri S.G Mehta.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

without jurisdiction. Jaggi and Jaggi Machine Tools India, Mumbai 2. Addition of Rs. 4,74,609/- on account of alleged bogus purchases 3. Levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C 4. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or add to the above grounds. 2. The brief facts of the case ... total income of Rs.7,28,031/-. Subsequently, the A.O. has received information from the DGIT(INV), Mumbai that the assessee has obtained the bogus purchase bills from two parties and the assessee is the beneficiary of the transaction. Therefore the A.O after recording the reasons for reopening and observe that

Income Tax Officeer -27(1) (1), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S. Dura Opto Technologies, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2422/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Ito – 27(1)(1) Vs. M/S Dura Opto Room No. 406, 4Th Floor, Technologies Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly 203, Sai Dham Bldg, Stn Complex, Vashi, Navi 90 Feet Road, Mumbai – 400703. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400077. Pan/Gir No. : Aaefd8131B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.T. Shankar. Cit Dr Respondent By : Mr.Rajesh Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 147 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.T. Shankar. CIT DRFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Kothari.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 6,14,698/- made by the Assessing of on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce bills, vouchers and other documentary M/s Dura Opto Technologies, Mumbai. evidences in support of its claim and without ... erred in estimating the profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only Rs.2,29,694/-,being 12.5% of the bogus purchases as even the basic onus of producing delivery challans ,transport bills etc. were not fulfilled by the assessee. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT CC-18 vs. Neena Hardeep Singh

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1421/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

purchase bills, challans, details of material purchase and their utilization for making sales, Ld. AO treated the purchase made from M/s. Thakur Associates as bogus purchases. Ld. AO also made an observation that the payments made against these purchases have been withdrawn from the bank in cash on the same ... assessee Has not made purchases this sale is also treated as bogus as Discussed above. 74,96,688/- 3. Addition on account of bogus purchases to M/s. Thakur Associates as discussed above. 76,88,380/- 4. Addition on account of bogus purchases to other Parties as discussed above

Silmohan Gems Pvt Ltd. Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 472/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

tune of5% of the alleged bogus addition to the tune of5% of the alleged bogus addition to the tune of5% of the alleged bogus purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving atthis rate which is totally ... amount of Rs. 2,82,88,673/- at Rs. 14,14,434/ at Rs. 14,14,434/- instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that

Silmohan Gems Pvt Ltd. Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 471/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

tune of5% of the alleged bogus addition to the tune of5% of the alleged bogus addition to the tune of5% of the alleged bogus purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving atthis rate which is totally ... amount of Rs. 2,82,88,673/- at Rs. 14,14,434/ at Rs. 14,14,434/- instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that